It seems to me the reason, if any, that RF focusing may be more accurate than live view on the M 240 as indicated in the blog you linked to is only because magnified live view on the M 240 is only in the center area and the area of magnification can not be moved around like on many other cameras with an EVF. So rather than see this as a shortfall of focusing with EVF's in general, I see this as merely a knock on Leica's implementation of live view on the M 240.

Agreed, plus another point that Sean Reid and I have mentioned: the way that live view works on the Leica M (and on the Nikon D800) means that reviewers like Tim Ashley are doing their EVF manual focusing with the lenses stopped down to taking aperture, whereas manual focusing is usually more accurate when done with the lens wide open, to make OOF focus effects clearer --- as it is in all other live view systems except those two AFAIK, and as it is with manual focusing on SLR's. Surely most of us have experienced how much easier manual focusing on an SLR is with a bright (low minimum f-stop) lens, where the subject pops in and out of focus dramatically as the focus is adjusted.

As both Sean Reid and Tim Ashley have noted, the exception is the case where the lens has substantial focus shift when stopping down: then the better approach is live view MF stopped down to the taking aperture, which will be better than with the rangefinder, which cannot compensate for that focus shift.

As both Sean Reid and Tim Ashley have noted, the exception is the case where the lens has substantial focus shift when stopping down: then the better approach is live view MF stopped down to the taking aperture, which will be better than with the rangefinder, which cannot compensate for that focus shift.

I think if you have a fast lens with significant focus shift, you can eliminate the bulk of the focus shift by stopping down about 2 stops from max aperture. So, If you've got a 1.4 lens stop down to 2.8 (or with an F 2.0 lens to F 4), focus at that aperture and then stop down further if desired for your shot. This would be handy if for example you wanted to shoot at F 5.6 or smaller since you would find EVF focusing easier at F 2.8 or F 4 than at the smaller apertures with more DOF.

I think if you have a fast lens with significant focus shift, you can eliminate the bulk of the focus shift by stopping down about 2 stops from max aperture. So, If you've got a 1.4 lens stop down to 2.8 (or with an F 2.0 lens to F 4), focus at that aperture and then stop down further if desired for your shot.

Yes, that is probably better; sorry for oversimplifying. It would be nice for the camera's software to offer automation of such a procedure!

You really feel passionately about this, so I'm hesitant to draw this out any further, but since I took the time to read your linked blog post I'm going to give you my thoughts anyway.

It seems to me the reason, if any, that RF focusing may be more accurate than live view on the M 240 as indicated in the blog you linked to is only because magnified live view on the M 240 is only in the center area and the area of magnification can not be moved around like on many other cameras with an EVF. So rather than see this as a shortfall of focusing with EVF's in general, I see this as merely a knock on Leica's implementation of live view on the M 240. If you could place the area of magnified live view on the spot in your image where you wanted the center of focus, I have no doubt that magnified live view would be as accurate or more accurate than the range finder mechanism.

The question is whether you believe focus is more accurate with RF (focusing in the middle). You can then knock on Leica implementation to argue missing functionality for not being able to move focus, but this is sidestepping the discussion on whether RF is more accurate than EVF (for wides -> short tele).

Its quite easy to test for yourself. I have done this in real life photography. *For me* the RF always beats the EVFs I have tried in terms of placing the focus plane where I want it by MF. And particular for situations where you have limited time to respond. Even for tripod work I prefer the RF, but the difference is less here since I have more time to endlessly adjust MF by EVF. I first experienced this when I was testing the performance of some of my Leica M lenses on my mirror less. I was really surprised how much easier it was to achieve accurate focus by RF.

But this is of course somewhat depending on persons, so please let me know your experiences comparing focus by RF to EVF (side by side).

Btw: I wish those answering could state if they actually have tried using both EVF and OVF, and for this part of the discussion RF OVF . For the record, I have not used the Fuji X-s nor the M(240), but owned and used the GH-2, NEX-5n / 7, D700, RD-1 and M9. I should also say that I dont use longer lenses than 135mm.

Here is anther piece of information, using Leica lenses on the X-E1 (if you read further down you will a see a balanced conclusion).

"Putting Things in Focus

This is the crux of the matter: how to tell when you are in focus? With a Leica M camera you simply align the split image in the viewfinder and trust to luck that the system is accurately adjusted. It works well most of the time and is unlikely to give problems, especially with 50mm and wider lenses. It is possible to achieve accurate focus very quickly and some Leica fans reckon they can beat an autofocus lens any time. In many ways it is still the ideal way of setting focus manually, despite all the technical advances we have seen in the past twenty years.

After the week with the X-E1 and the Leica lenses I returned to the M9 to do some comparison shots and immediately felt back at home with the split-image rangefinder. If I am honest, it is a tad quicker to find focus than with Fujifilm’s EVF. The Fujifilm, though, is satisfying and accurate; it just goes about things in a different way.

Accurate focus: No, in fact on focal lengths 90mm and below the RF is more accurate than EVF on MF. As proven by M users that have both. I also prefer the focus by RF on a M9 over the EVF on NEX-7, and have much better accuracy.

Even if that were true, I don't even consider a RF camera. By no means I am willing to use a camera that can't show me the exact framing and perspective of the image I'm just about to capture, that is far more important to me than a little plus in focus accuracy. My claim was vs the OVF found on DSLR cameras, which I consider the only real option to EVF mirrorless cameras. And for several reasons for amateur photography I am with the EVF.

Even if that were true, I don't even consider a RF camera. By no means I am willing to use a camera that can't show me the exact framing and perspective of the image I'm just about to capture, that is far more important to me than a little plus in focus accuracy. My claim was vs the OVF found on DSLR cameras, which I consider the only real option to EVF mirrorless cameras. And for several reasons for amateur photography I am with the EVF.

With all due respect, what you consider as "the only real option" hardly counts as the limitation when discussing pros and cons of finders. I can only say that I consider all finders found on any camera as real options for photographers in a OVF/EVF discussion.

So how long have you used a RF (along with a EVF / OVF DSLR) before deciding its not a real option? Its cons are as you say the framing (that I correct post) and not being accurate in perspective, being worse for close objects. Again my belief is that you and other pro-EVF folks have never used a good SLR OVF (not the crappy crop DSLR) or a RF so you believe an EVF is all that is.

I can only (again) state that I prefer to see what I shoot rather than have 100% accurate framing / perspective. The EVFs are by far to dark when its bright, and to bright when its dark. Yesterday I was out fishing along with a friend from Kayak. We tried using my NEX-7 while fishing, but the combination of sun (24/7 here now) and water reflections made the photography close to guesswork about framing and composing. The M9 was of course flawless since the brain compensates for chancing light conditions in real time as opposed to the EVF that hinders exactly that , and my friends mid-range Canon DSLR much better than the NEX for this given scenario.

Again my belief is that you and other pro-EVF folks have never used a good SLR OVF (not the crappy crop DSLR) or a RF so you believe an EVF is all that is.

And in my case you are totally right, but going back to analog is not an option for me, and neither is considering an expensive and bulky top FF DSLR with a relatively good OVF (I'm an amateur photographer and I want to find a balance between my gear investment and usage), that is why I'm best served with a 100% EVF on a mirrorless body. And regarding RF, the framing and perspective issue is basic to me.

I have recently known that Nikon DSLR's Live View doesn't even provide a realtime exposure display, which any mirrorless, compact camera or smartphone does. Really amazing.